SAJJAN SINGH Vs. MUKAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this letters patent appeal, the undisputed facts are that during the course of consolidation proceedings in appellant's village, Mohan Bhadar, area marked as 'ABC' in the plan Annexure'A' was provided or demarcated for being utilised as a watercourse for irrigating the lands of various landowners. At a later stage, the Divisional Canal Officer, Abhor, vide his order dated August 20, 1966 directed the subordinate canal authorities to get the watercourse dug at the spot. Since the Sub Divisional Officer concerned found that the above noted order of the Divisional Canal Officer could not be complied with without the help of the police, he resubmitted the papers to the Divisional Canal Officer with a report to that effect. The Divisional Canal Officer again on October 25, 1966, directed him to seek police help if need be for the digging of the watercourse. Since the appellant who claims to hold land on either side of this watercourse felt affected by this action of the Divisional Canal Officer, he made an effort to secure the copies of the above noted two orders but the same were declined by the Divisional Canal Officer vide his communication dated December 9, 1966 (Annexure 'C'). In this communication it has been stated by the Divisional Canal Officer that since the above noted orders were executive or administrative orders, no copies of the same could be supplied to the appellant under the rules. Treating this communication as an order of the Divisional Canal Officer, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer on the plea that the Divisional Canal Officer could not forcibly get the said watercourse dug through his land as according to him the digging was likely to bifurcate his land. He, however, did not pray for the setting aside of any specific order of the Divisional Canal Officer. The Superintending Canal Officer appears to have been impressed by this claim of the appellant, and while allowing the revision petition on March 26, 1968, directed that another watercourse 'AXC'(in the site plan Annexure 'A') be provided for instead of 'ABC'. Still not feeling satisfied with this order of the Superintending Canal Officer, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashing of the order dated March 26, 1968, passed by the Superintending Canal Officer (Annexure'F') and order dated August 20, 1966 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, as referred to in the communication Annexure 'C'. The learned Single Judge of this Court, while quashing order Annexure 'F' as totally without jurisdiction, has said nothing about the impugned order of the Divisional Canal Officer dated August 20, 1966. In this appeal, the appellant prays for the quashing of the said order dated August 20, 1966. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we, however, find no merit in the appeal.

(2.) The appellant appears to be suffering from an apprehension so far as the factual and legal aspect of the matter is concerned. His stand firstly is that watercourse 'ABC' is being dug through his land and secondly, the Divisional Canal Officer could not issue any such direction under sections 20, 30-FF or 30-A of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 without the framing of a scheme for the digging of this watercourse. As already pointed out above, the area for the digging of this watercourse was demarcated or provided for during the consolidation proceedings and the canal authorities have obviously nothing to do with the providing of this area for that purpose. They are only utilising that area by digging a watercourse therein. Thus the stand of the appellant that the watercourse is being dug through his land is totally baseless. Similarly, the above noted action of the Divisional Canal Officer in asking the subordinate authorities to dig the watercourse at the spot, is apparently not taken under the above noted sections. This also is the firm stand of the respondent authorities. According to them, they have ordered neither for the supply of water through any intervening watercourse as envisaged by section 20 nor for the restoration of any demolished watercourse as envisaged by section 30-FF. Similarly the Divisional Canal Officer has not ordered the construction or providing of a new watercourse for purposes of irrigation the lands of the owners concerned. As already pointed out, he has merely asked the subordinate authorities to dig up the watercourse in the area demarcated for the said purpose by the consolidation authorities which area, as already indicated above, does not belong to the appellant. We thus find that the action of the Divisional Canal Officer as referred to in Annexure 'C' is not in any way violative of an rule or principle of law. We are also of the firm opinion that the appellant has no locus standi or right to ask for the non-utilisation of the area demarcated by the consolidation authorities for the purpose concerned.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs which we determine at Rs. 250/-.